LEXICAL AMBIGUITY COMPARED TO SYNTACTIC / OR STRUCTURAL AMBIGUITY
Language is an important tool for us to communicate and transfer information day by day. It is really hard to imagine a situation without language delivery. Furthermore, a natural language is not so perfectly designed to transfer all the information in an expected way. More or less, some gaps in a language cannot be avoided, such as the ambiguity of a language which causes confusion in people's common utterances. There are frequently ambiguous words and sentences appearing in our utterances which acquire more succinct clarification from speakers. Various interpretations of the same utterance may lead to various interpretations and to the difficulty of comprehension of listeners. Taken for granted, ambiguous sentences and words can be quite often interpreted in an accurate way when they are used in reality; moreover, writers and speakers use this characteristic of ambiguity to make an artistic impact on their language.
Both syntactic and lexical ambiguity, are ruled by the same types of knowledge representations and processing mechanisms. Highly similarly empirical, theoretical and methodological issues have arisen in both the lexical and syntactic domains; the role of frequency information, the types of information involved in contextual constraints, the extent to which contextual information constrains the interpretation of ambiguities and whether the processing system is modular or interactive. Even though structural ambiguities are rarely noticed in ordinary language use, yet, they are extremely common like lexical ambiguities. They are a major contributor to the large number of parses produced by computational parsing systems. Syntactic and lexical ambiguity is very pervasive in linguistics and although the language intentions might have an objective sensationalistic interpretation, it can also be a misconstrued manipulative device. Recent types of theorizing eliminate the strong distinction between accessing a meaning and constructing a syntactic representation, which was central to previous accounts. These parallels between the domains are not coincidental; they reflect common underlying processes and types of knowledge representations. The parallels derive from the fact that the syntactic ambiguities in question are based on ambiguities at the lexical level. The same ambiguity resolution mechanisms apply in both domains because both involve ambiguities over various types of lexical representations.
Cann, R. 1993. Formal Semantics: an introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Charles C. Fries, linguistics and corpus linguistics; (1964)
Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures; 1957
Foss, D. J. (1970). Some effects of ambiguity upon sentence comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9, 699-706 .
Hurford, R.S. and B. Heasley 1983. Semantics: A coursebook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kempson, R. M. (1977). Semantic theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Kuno, S. 1965. The predictive analyzer and a path elimination technique. Communications of the ACM, vol. 8, pp. 453-462
Oaks, Dallin D. 1994 Creating structural ambiguities in humor: Getting English grammar to cooperate. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 7 (4), 377–401.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Riesbeck, C, and Schank, R. 1978, Comprehension by computer: Expectation-based analysis of sentences in context. In W. Levelt and G. Flores d'Arcais, eds., Studies in the Perception of language, John Wiley, Chichester, England, pp. 247-293.
Saeed, J. 2003. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell
Weinreich, U. (1966). Explorations in semantic theory. In T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Current trends in linguistics (Vol. 3). The Hague: Mouton.